Dispatches from the Culture Wars

The double moral of Christians:

When it goes right, it was the will of God

When it goes wrong, it were the people who did it. Or worzxe, it was the work of the devil!

Posted by: Kim | November 19, 2009 9:37 AM

creationist believe every word that Genisis said. and to be honest, i wasnt much of a fan of theirs after Peter Gabriel left

Posted by: Vic Vanity | November 19, 2009 9:52 AM

heddle
It's just wishy washy nonsense, there's a big difference between an all powerful creator who kick started a process and someone who is looking out for you and guides everything. How does god create us, ie every individual

Posted by: Naughtius Maximus | November 19, 2009 10:03 AM

Or, evolution can not be true (accordingly to the creationists) because something cannot come out of nothing. If that is true, then who, or what, the hell begat a God? It is intellectually easier to this of molecules colliding and exploding to form the Universe then thinking of a all powerful God.

Posted by: DPSisler | November 19, 2009 10:15 AM

I thoroughly enjoyed fisking book "reviews" of Palin's book at Amazon last evening.

I repeatedly linked three media outlets noting Palin's lies, two of which were for her book and the other was Sullivan's 11/15 list that runs from last year's campaign up to the release date of the book. Their response was either avoiding the topic or claiming that a group of Palin supporters fisked the AP fact checkers (while avoiding even acknowledging my other two sources, Media Matters and Andrew Sullivan).

Sullivan and his two assistants didn't blog yesterday to peruse the book in their upcoming fisking.

Here's an example of one fisking of a so-called review that I did (like this review, most of the reviewers have obviously not read the book - both supporters and detractors). This link includes a comment where I provide three links collating Palin's lies and a comment used repeatedly as a defense. The Palinista defense is basically that no one fact-checked Obama's book plus a group of Palin supporters (they provide a link) have fisked AP's report on the book's lies.

Posted by: Michael Heath | November 19, 2009 10:18 AM

heddle,
You've got to get some therapy over this Palin fixation. She's a certified moron. She's a liar and getting better at that all the time. I do not agree with much of the theology you do, but I believe you are honest and intelligent. Just think of that wink as a facial tic and give her up. Move on.

Posted by: MikeMa | November 19, 2009 10:20 AM

Schmidt winced and raised his eyebrows. In the dim light, his sunglasses shifted atop his hear.

Huh? Schmidt has ears on top of his head?

Posted by: Chilidog | November 19, 2009 10:32 AM

Hopefully, next she will come out as a birther.

Posted by: Chilidog | November 19, 2009 10:34 AM

But, is she a young Earther? Will the true creationists accept her if she does not come out and openly embrace the "young Earth" theory?

Posted by: Chilidog | November 19, 2009 10:54 AM

Heddle quoting Palin's verbal response to Schmidt in bold:

that He can create an evolutionary process that allows species to change and adapt.

The easy way to solve this would be for her answer this question, "Do H. Sapiens share a common ancestor with non-hominids?"

We already have her answer, written in her book, where it's a lot easier for anyone to be more precise than what they state verbally. She stated and Ed quoted

didn't believe in the theory that human beings -- thinking, loving beings -- originated from fish that sprouted legs and crawled out of the sea" or from "monkeys who eventually swung down from the trees."

Your wrong Heddle, at least with the evidence to date. Her book compellingly, though not convincingly, argues we should accept that she doesn't accept common descent for humans.

Her written statement is a strong indication she's a creationist, not a theistic evolutionist.

Posted by: Michael Heath | November 19, 2009 10:57 AM

heddle wrote:

Also, her claiming God ordained everything and yet blaming people for their actions is sound (in my view)--and very traditional theology. The most obvious biblical examples are Pharaoh and Judas. In each case the outcome was ordained, yet the culprits were held morally culpable. Ordained does not mean decreed. Ordained, as used in this sense, includes the case where God had the wherewithal yet did not act to prevent something from happening.

Heddle, I'm not a theologist or a Bible scholar, but I know a few Bible stories, one of which is the saga concerning Moses vs. Pharaoh. And as I recall, after being visited by some of those plagues, Pharaoh was ready to give in; but "God hardened his heart," repeatedly, to draw out the whole affair to its ultimate tragic conclusion for the Egyptians --- apparently for no particular reason other than to increase the drama of the situation.

Yes, the Bible still held Pharaoh as morally culpable --- but entirely unjustly, since it reports that his free will was repeatedly hijacked by God. It's like describing a man being knocked unconscious by a mugger and then blaming him for being lazy.

Now, honestly, I don't attribute this behavior to an actual deity; I attribute it to a fictitious figure in Bronze-Age myths written by humans. It's nothing but a literary device in a grand fable-like epic, like the misdirection of Odysseus, or the shenanigans involved with the Twelve Labors of Herakles, to draw out the sequence of events and increase the drama of the story.

But if it were the behavior of an actual God, it would stand in stark contradiction to your claim highlighted above; according to the Bible, God deliberately took a hand in matters by "hardening Pharaoh's heart," repeatedly, to prevent something from happening --- namely, capitulation by the Pharaoh.

Ed: My apologies for the threadjack, but I just could not let this casual mischaracterization go unnoted.

~David D.G.

Posted by: David D.G. | November 19, 2009 11:06 AM

Sally Quinn addresses her "God's Plan" hypocrisy:
http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/panelists/sally_quinn/2009/11/sarah_palins_rogue_christianity.html?hpid=talkbox1

For example:
Did God plan for Levi Johnson to be the father of her grandchild? Did God plan for Levi Johnson, who she now calls Ricky Hollywood, to pose nude for Playgirl and go into "porn" as she told Oprah. If so, why does she find it heartbreaking?

Posted by: marcia | November 19, 2009 11:11 AM

Nothing troubles me more than having leaders that will make decisions, as Robt. E. Lee did at the battle of Gettysburgh (according to Gen. Longstreets memoirs,) with the certainty that "God is on our side."

A recipe for disaster.

Posted by: Sardine | November 19, 2009 11:29 AM

That is, heart-hardening refers not to God creating evil in Pharaoh's heart, but in God removing a restraint (sometimes called common grace) that was preventing, if you will, Pharaoh from being as bad as he could be.

Oh, for Christ's sake. That's bullshit. A Real True Calvinist™ (like the kind I was raised among) would just say, "Yeah, God fucks some people over. Don't like it? Tough." And I quote (Romans 9):

13As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.

14What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid.

15For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion.

16So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy.

17For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth.

18Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth.

19Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will?

20Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus?

21Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?

Posted by: Ivan | November 19, 2009 11:36 AM

Can we just stick to the point that Sarah Palin is a self rightous beeatch?

Posted by: Chilidog | November 19, 2009 11:42 AM

I get the sense that, unlike the previous Republican leadership -- Bush, Rove, Cheney, etc. -- Palin truly believes in creationism as opposed to pretending to believe in it for political reasons.

Not sure which is less objectionable though.

Posted by: tacitus | November 19, 2009 11:57 AM

Slate magazine have posted an extremely amusing unofficial index to Going Rogue here, which probably tells you everything you need to know about the contents thereof. I especially liked:

wedding
________simple city hall-style of, 49
________food served at (Wendy's), 49
________cost of wedding ring ($35), 230

Truly, the Uriah Heep of modern politics.

Posted by: Der Bruno Stroszek | November 19, 2009 12:21 PM

She actually advocated a form of theistic evolution

Not necessarily. There are plenty of creationists who play the "okay, microevolution might exist but macroevolution doesn't happen, nohow!" card. If Palin also believes in this same model, then her statements aren't inconsistent or even bet-hedging, they're a set of coherent statements within a particular brand of creationism.

Posted by: Alex | November 19, 2009 1:16 PM

Yes, genesis was much cooler during the prog phase with Gabriel.

Posted by: anonymous | November 19, 2009 1:41 PM

tacitus - I'll buy Cheney and Rove, but I'm not so sure about Bush.

Posted by: Taz | November 19, 2009 2:13 PM

marcia @ #24

Did God plan for Levi Johnson to be the father of her grandchild? Did God plan for Levi Johnson, who she now calls Ricky Hollywood, to pose nude for Playgirl and go into "porn" as she told Oprah. If so, why does she find it heartbreaking?

Yes, yes he did. God thinks she's just as much a joke as we do, but he's even meaner.

Posted by: Scott Hanley | November 19, 2009 2:31 PM

amphiox: On the other hand, most creationists also believe that an honest-to-Jeezus global flood occurred four thousand years ago. So I don't think we should try to squeeze too much logic out of their views.

Posted by: Ivan | November 19, 2009 2:59 PM

@Raging Bee

"Very traditional theology" in this instance is Calvinism, a kind of theology considered batshit insane even by most Christians.

Posted by: Ivan | November 19, 2009 3:03 PM

Blake, OK, i see your point. Insects are not tetrapods, however, and that was my point.

Posted by: Chilidog | November 19, 2009 3:36 PM

They don't truly believe that "no thing can come out of nothing", they believe that only one thing can come out of nothing, that thing being God, and everything else must come from god.

What a straw man. Even granting that there may be individuals who believe this, it is not a universal position, and in fact, one of the most popular formulations of the kalam cosmological argument includes the premise "Whatever begins to exist has a cause," which does not itself apply to God, who exists necessarily and eternally (and thus never begins to exist).

[Note: The above comment does not constitute an endorsement of the kalam cosmological argument; all inquiries should be sent care of William Lane Craig.]

More on-topic: I think Heddle is right that the statement he pointed out sounds like theistic evolution (or more accurately, something a theistic evolutionist might affirm), but certainly that doesn't mean that Palin is a theistic evolutionist. Far from it, by all accounts.

Posted by: The Christian Cynic | November 19, 2009 4:03 PM

...what I did many years ago, invite Him in to take over.

Posted by: mark | November 19, 2009 4:23 PM

Doesn't it scare you just a little bit that the potential for someone like this to make a run for the presidency is high, someone who is obviously confused as to what is fact and what is fiction. Is there anybody left on the conservative side who is at least somewhat grounded in reality, someone who could potentially win the republican nomination.

Scares the hell out of me anyway.

Posted by: Doug Little | November 19, 2009 4:33 PM

heddle @25

I'll give the standard Calvinistic answer to your criticism.

Posted by: James Hanley | November 19, 2009 4:50 PM

Christian Cynic states @ :

I think Heddle is right that the statement he pointed out sounds like theistic evolution (or more accurately, something a theistic evolutionist might affirm), but certainly that doesn't mean that Palin is a theistic evolutionist.

The problem with your assertion, and heddles is that we have two statements to reconcile, not merely one. Here they are:

From the book:

Elsewhere in this volume, she talks about creationism, saying she "didn't believe in the theory that human beings -- thinking, loving beings -- originated from fish that sprouted legs and crawled out of the sea" or from "monkeys who eventually swung down from the trees." In everything that happens to her, from meeting Todd to her selection by Mr. McCain for the Republican ticket, she sees the hand of God: "My life is in His hands. I encourage readers to do what I did many years ago, invite Him in to take over."

Her discussion with McCain Campaign Mgr. Steve Schmidt and the statement heddle used:

"But your dad's a science teacher," Schmidt objected. "Yes." "Then you know that science proves evolution," added Schmidt. "Parts of evolution," I said. "But I believe that God created us and also that He can create an evolutionary process that allows species to change and adapt." Schmidt winced and raised his eyebrows. In the dim light, his sunglasses shifted atop his hear. I had just dared to mention the C-word: creationism. But I felt I was on solid factual ground.

One can easily reconcile these two statements with creationism, but not the first one with theistic evolution given it argues against common ancestry (though in an ellipitcal way - I believe out of ignorance, not due to being disingenuous). We are therefore left with creationist, particularly given that Ms. Palin controlled both of these statements.

As someone else stated, I'm not surprised, she's too deluded and idiotic to be a science supporter. I doubt she has even a passing knowledge of either creationism or evolution, in spite of her dad's being a science teacher, which we should note is no guarantee he accepts scientific theories. In fact, if he's the reason his daughter is a conservative Christian, than I'd be shocked if he was anything but a creationist. When he would have been teaching, I'd bet most rural schools barely touched on evolution, mine certainly didn't.

Posted by: Michael Heath | November 19, 2009 5:04 PM

Michael Heath, that's exactly what I'm saying: the one statement alone sounds like something that a theistic evolutionist (like Collins) would affirm, but a broader look at Palin's views discounts that option (because of the denial of common ancestry). I think Heddle is saying something similar, but I certainly can't speak for him.

Full disclosure: I have no fondness for Palin or her wink.

Posted by: The Christian Cynic | November 19, 2009 5:09 PM

Re Michael Heath

It is my understanding that Ms. Palins' father is a high school biology teacher. I seem to recall that she at one time admitted that she and her father did not agree about the theory of evolution but I can't recall the details. I do seem to recall that this was part of a revelation from one of her Wasilla critics.

Posted by: SLC | November 19, 2009 5:31 PM

Looking for clear and direct arguments in Palin's statements is like looking for the Bill of Rights in a comic book: a fool's errand.

Posted by: Moon Jaguar | November 19, 2009 7:32 PM

Berbel: You forgot "mandatory gay marriages", "no guns", "bibles banned in Churches" and "daily abortions". Other than those misses (and probably a few others that my drug and sex-addled mind skipped...Oh! Add "free drugs" and "sexy nightly sex-orgies of sex"), you're well on your way to becoming the deadly and dangerous capital "L" Liberal that exists mostly in the fevered imagination of the Right. Kudos.

Posted by: Modusoperandi | November 19, 2009 9:38 PM

"Churches" plural sounds to me like there are other acceptable churches other than the church of scientology, which I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess is the ONLY acceptable church. So why are "bibles" banned in church? Oh and by the way I am ALL FOR mandatory gay marriages for ALL liberals! HEH!!

Posted by: Berbel | November 19, 2009 10:02 PM

She believes that "He can create an evolutionary process that allows species to change and adapt"? Then why isn't she a theistic evolutionist?

Posted by: Kristine | November 19, 2009 10:34 PM

Kristine @ 70 asks:

She [Ms. Palin] believes that "He can create an evolutionary process that allows species to change and adapt"? Then why isn't she a theistic evolutionist?

Two reasons:
1) That statement is perfectly consistent with what most creationists think, i.e., dog breeding, corn domestication, etc. Even a complete moron like Ray Comfort believes this. Ms. Palin might not mean it this way and might actually mean speciation takes place for a long enough time whole new classes of life eventually arise. But my careful scrutiny of her is that she's an ignorant dolt who never went deep enough to consider anything even mildly technical, so it's a safe bet she understands that species can adapt, but we shouldn't extend that to populations evolve to the point there is speciation where all species share a common ancestor.

2) We have another statement that is clearly creationist. It eradicates any thought of her being a theistic evolutionist while not contradicting the first comment you quoted. Ed posted in this at the top which is what Palin supposedly wrote in her book:

she [Palin] "didn't believe in the theory that human beings -- thinking, loving beings -- originated from fish that sprouted legs and crawled out of the sea" or from "monkeys who eventually swung down from the trees." In everything that happens to her, from meeting Todd to her selection by Mr. McCain for the Republican ticket, she sees the hand of God: "My life is in His hands. I encourage readers to do what I did many years ago, invite Him in to take over."

Clearly this can only be creationist language.

Posted by: Michael Heath | November 19, 2009 10:56 PM

Berbel "'Churches' plural sounds to me like there are other acceptable churches other than the church of scientology, which I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess is the ONLY acceptable church."
No. No "revealed text" is acceptable. No faith is good faith...except for the faith in Darwinism, which we believe despite the fact that it has no evidence.

"Why can't science prove a unified theory of everything?"
Assuming that there is a Theory of Everything, I would assume it's because we don't know enough yet.

"Stephen Hawking we should have discovered it already, so where is it?"
Pbbt! Hawking isn't the boss of us. Darwin is.

"If the universe began with the "big bang" like science says then when, how or why did the "big bang" happen?"
When is something like 14 billion years ago. The rest is harder, if not impossibler to figure out, barring the invention of a time machine that can travel before time itself, which is kind of trippy if you think about it.

"Science doesn't have all the answers and neither does religion."
Science doesn't pretend to have all the answers. Religion pretends to have all the answers it doesn't have.

"In religion "faith" fills in the blanks, and science has "theories"."
And, as the former expands, the latter contracts. That doesn't make the former good. That merely makes it consistently wrong (at least in those areas where it makes truth claims that can be investigated).

"To belittle some one for believing in a "higher" power that may have created the universe and had a hand in our "evolution" is a bigot."

Elsewhere in this volume, she talks about creationism, saying she "didn't believe in the theory that human beings -- thinking, loving beings -- originated from fish that sprouted legs and crawled out of the sea" or from "monkeys who eventually swung down from the trees."

Posted by: Modusoperandi | November 19, 2009 11:31 PM

"There is no absolute proof that we are all descendants of primates or any other form of life."

Dear Mom and Dad, Grandmas and Grandpas, and Great Grandparents going back to at least Leif Ericson and Qin Shi Huang:

Sorry to inform you that you are not a from of life.

With Love,

Your Descendants

Posted by: 10,000li | November 20, 2009 12:26 AM

"There is no absolute proof that we are all descendants of primates or any other form of life."

Jebus-on-a-pogo-stick you're a moron.

Posted by: Rick R | November 20, 2009 12:43 AM

Re Berbel

The evidence from molecular biology points overwhelming toward a common ancestry for chimpanzees and humans. Decoding of the genomes of the two species has shown that they are more closely related then are chimpanzees and gorillas. The evidence of the merger of ape chromosomes 12 and 13 to form human human chromosome 2 is the smoking gun.

Posted by: SLC | November 20, 2009 6:08 AM

Actually, conservative religionists don't use faith merely to fill in what they don't know. Instead faith is used to claim absolute assurance for a set of 'truths' they claim as absolute knowledge, many of which have been previously falsified yet still held anyway.

Our society will have grown up when it views faith as a juvenile delusional character defect.

Posted by: Michael Heath | November 20, 2009 9:00 AM

Our society will have grown up when it views faith as a juvenile delusional character defect.

Amen.

Posted by: Josh | November 20, 2009 9:18 AM

Moon Jaguar, you're so wrong! A very quick google finds what you are after -
http://www.docstoc.com/docs/3551966/Bill-of-Rights-Comic-Strip-The-First-Amendment

Posted by: Cath the Canberra Cook | November 20, 2009 5:48 PM

Berbel "More name calling from the liberal left."
What do you expect, deference to your ignorance?

"When some one can provide the unquestionable, statiscally accurate data that proves beyond any doubt that we are all the long lost cousins of clyde from "Any Which Way But Lose", I will call myself a monkey's uncle and I'll take a chimp to church, HEH!"
Then I assume you've been doing so for a while, hmm, unless you don't accept multiple, converging lines of evidence?

"Then why does everyone accept it without question? "
Without question? Really? Ever seen a Gouldian go at it with a Dawkinsian? Ever seen more than one quantum physicist in a room having a conversation? It's not great at absolute truth, but its wrong is less wrong than the wrong posited by alternative "ways of knowing". It's not great at finding out what's absolutely right, but it's excellent at filtering out the things that are wrong. In short, science's "a close enough model for now, pending new data" works.

Posted by: Modusoperandi | November 20, 2009 10:01 PM

Bertel - seems you slept through your classes.
Viruses are extremely modified descendants of our nearest common ancestor (about 3.2B yrs ago?), everything is "related the flu virus", including us, extremely distantly. We know this because we can compare the genomes of various plants, animals, fungus and slime-molds and see how much thy differ from each other. Note this is not an experiment.
Sometimes it isn't possible (or practical) to conduct an experiment. In such cases, scientists have to collect data and suggest a theory that adequately explains that data. The data might not be of an event itself even, but the effects of that event. Until recently we couldn't 'see' atoms, but we knew they existed both because they 'should' exist (parsimony) and because we could observe the effect of atoms (air pressure, Brownian motion and so on). That atoms existed was widely accepted even without 'absolute' proof, no credible scientists serious doubted it for the reasons above (amongst others).
A theory is the simplest explanation for the data in that data-set. As the data-set expands, scientist look for data that tests the theory to modify (or discard if totally inexplicable) the explanation. The theory becomes more and more probable, but never 100% certain. At the moment, for example, the science behind AGW is well above 'reasonable doubt' level*, and, due to the catastrophic effects that could happen, urgent action is prudent.
A Law, on the other hand, is a mathematical construct that explains data with a narrow set of conditions. F = ^(Gx(M+m))/_(r^2) is an example of a Law (of gravitation, in this case). It works as long as it's occurring much slower than the speed of light, at scales above quantum fluctuations, and in the absence of dark matter or energy, for example.
Theories and Laws are very different, and have different functions in science. One doesn't become the other.
Hope that kinda helps. I'm sure others can and will do a much better job of explaining it. - DJ
--------------------
* It's interesting that skeptics demand that science provides "... unquestionable, statistically accurate data that proves beyond any doubt ...", yet in court are satisfied with "Beyond reasonable doubt" (or "In the balance of probabilities").

Posted by: DingoJack | November 20, 2009 10:23 PM

berbel the moron- "Science provides theories and then conducts experiments to prove the theory. If an experiment provides statistically accurate data after it is repeated numerous times the theory becomes accepted and can eventually become law."

Well done. You've achieved full "moron" status (that's right, m-o-r-o-n. There, I spelled it for you) and are now working your way down to brain dead.

Posted by: Rick R | November 21, 2009 1:25 AM

Well, there you have it, Dick I mean Rick R called me a moron, and he even spelled it out so it MUST be true. Thanks for pointing that out to me Rick R, I'll just go sit in the corner now and sob since your opinion of me meant the world to me. Get over yourself Rick R.

Posted by: Berbel | November 21, 2009 1:44 AM

Berbel: No, theories don't become laws.

A law differs from a scientific theory in that it does not posit a mechanism or explanation of phenomena: it is merely a distillation of the results of repeated observation. (also fm wikipedia)

Posted by: Modusoperandi | November 21, 2009 2:24 AM

More name calling from the liberal left.

If you're unhappy about name-calling, then you could address the points I made in my previous comment to you, where I didn't call you any names...

Well I took phyics and chemistry in college and I am familiar with scientific method.

If that's true, then why would you write something as completely wrong as this:

Science provides theories and then conducts experiments to prove the theory.

Theories come after observations. Theories explain observations, so there have to be some observations in need of explanation before someone devises a theory... It's accurate to say that things don't stop there, but to view the process of science as someone pulling a new theory out of thin air and then looking for observations to confirm it isn't really accurate.

And actually, science doesn't prove theories. It just doesn't. All scientific theories are open to the possibility of being falsified, even if that chance is vanishingly remote. Scientific theories are not ever proven True^TM. Even if we did hit upon the truth of some matter, how the hell would we know? What would we compare our results against? This idea that science proves theories true is advocated by folks who don't understand science.

And then you went on to write this howler here:

If an experiment provides statistically accurate data after it is repeated numerous times the theory becomes accepted and can eventually become law.

The mistake you made here was touched on in previous comments, but it's such a common problem (with people in numerous walks of life) that I think it bears some additional treatment.

Scientific theories do not evolve into scientific laws through repeated testing. They.simply.do.not. Whoever taught you that this is how science works doesn't know what they're talking about*. In science, a theory has a different job from a law, which is why there are two different terms. Laws and theories are different things. In the simplest sense (and this is very broad brush):

theories explain observations

laws describe observations

Another thing that people fail to understand is that theories are actually "more important" (or certainly more desired) because what we're always trying to do in science is understand why/how** things happen. Laws help us describe the what of certain aspects of nature, but they're not very good at helping us understand why shit does what it does. In general, what scientists really want to know is...why shit does what it does. That's the realm of the theory.

This hierarchy that people often refer to of hypothesis -> theory -> law is a myth. It's not how science works. Theories are not more tentative than laws. They're...different.

_________________
*Until about a year ago, the Wikiblabbia entry on Science perpetuated this bullshit. It was wrong. And even if it weren't, I really couldn't care less what Wikiblabbia says.

**I mean, describing what happens is great, but for most of us, it's where the fun starts, not where it ends.

Posted by: Josh | November 21, 2009 8:28 AM

People like democommie and Rick R are why this board comes off sounding like a bunch of know it all assholes. If you don't subscribe to their narrow point of view and beliefs then you are a moron, idiot, douchebag, or whatever name they can come up with. If everyone here chooses to not believe in GOD that's fine, you don't have to and no one is try to make you. You want to belive in Darwinism then that's great too. But what gets me is if I choose to believe something else then that's my choice. My choices don't affect anyone else and to be put down and ridiculed for it just shows how intolerant and bigoted people here can be. For people who claim to be so enlightened you should be above all that. Instead the posters here feel the need to prove their intelectual superiority and they just come off sounding arrogant and petty.

"Our society will have grown up when it views faith as a juvenile delusional character defect."

Billions of people around the world believe in some sort of higher power, so I guess we're all defective and the people here are perfect and have all the answers. Yeah right. Come down off your high horses and just live and let live. Or just keep doing what your doing and continue alienating people to the message that you are trying to get across with your petulance.

Posted by: Berbel | November 21, 2009 2:58 PM

Blueballs:

"Billions of people around the world believe in some sort of higher power, so I guess we're all defective and the people here are perfect and have all the answers. Yeah right. Come down off your high horses and just live and let live. Or just keep doing what your doing and continue alienating people to the message that you are trying to get across with your petulance."

How can I say this clearly, so that even a fuckwit like you can understand?

I don't give a flying fuck what you think. You can believe that the Tooth Fairy is GOD (it's as likely as any other scenario). If you are too emotionally weak or psychologically fragile to live without the notion that despite your flaws there's a hereafter for you to enjoy, instead of this life--that would be YOUR problem.

When you come here and spout fucking nonsense you make it everybody's problem. I would say that you've done just the opposite of convincing people that you have the answers to life's great questions. But since you labor on, under the delusion that you are somehow winning the argument I will continue to tell you that you're a fucking idiot and that you should STFU. I'll make you a deal, dimwit; I'll quit "harassing" you, if you go the fuck away.

Posted by: democommie | November 21, 2009 4:45 PM

Billions of people around the world believe in some sort of higher power, so I guess we're all defective and the people here are perfect and have all the answers. Yeah right.

Billions of people around the world, a majority in fact, do not believe that Jesus was the son of God. Are they all defective?

As offensive as you may find the idea, it certainly is possible for billions of people to be wrong. In fact, if there is any unassailable fact in psychology, it is this: Large numbers of intelligent, educated, sane people of good character are at this very moment completely wrong about something they believe very strongly. So many people believe so many contradictory things that it can't be avoided.

So no, you are not defective. You are, however, wrong.

Posted by: DaveL | November 21, 2009 6:02 PM

'Billions of people'* also live on less than US$1.00 per day, have no access to clean water, eat one meal a day (if they're lucky), have no access to education, and so on.
You seriously think this is an ideal to aspire to?
Besides which, reality is not a democracy (forget all that post-modern 'with our thoughts we make the world' crap), reality just is. Science is about finding out what that reality is, how it works and what it was in the past (and will be in the future).
We don't care if you believe or not, that is irrelevant. We do care that science should not be misrepresented as being a mirror image to your religion, with it's icons and idols, spells and rituals, irrational beliefs and feverent fantasies.
This is not what science is. science has no dogma, holy text or sacred cows. It may take time to change, but in the face of evidence, change it will. Science goes where the evidence leads.
BTW Re-read my post #90 & #91. they might help clarify things, vis a vis 'theory' and 'law'.
Cheers, DINGO
-----------------
* Argumentum ad populum I believe this is called. Sometimes people just get it wrong. This is because humans are very not observant in normal circumstances and because "the universe isn't stranger than you imagine, it's stranger than you can imagine."

Posted by: DingoJack | November 21, 2009 8:23 PM

Berbel - you want respect? Start by admitting that you were completely wrong about the meanings of "theory" and "law" as they are used in science. "Theories" do not become "laws" with more evidence - that's not a matter of opinion, it's a simple fact. Acknowledge that you don't really understand how science works, as evidenced by your claim that "no one questions it", and maybe we can start a useful conversation. Your theology is your own, but when you come on a ScienceBlogs site and start spouting nonsense about science, you're going to get smacked down.

Posted by: Taz | November 21, 2009 8:37 PM

One wonders why Berbel continues posting here if he doesn't like being insulted or having his beliefs challenged.

Posted by: Sadie Morrison | November 21, 2009 8:57 PM

"To believe that everything just MAGICALLY appeared and turned out the way it did without some sort of divine influence sounds delusional to me."

"Divine influence" is magic. Mechanistic theories which stipulate predictions are science. Evolution is an example of the latter.

Posted by: Tyler DiPietro | November 21, 2009 10:03 PM

BTW - those commenter are constructing 'the Theory of Berbel's Idiocy', it's not ever gonna be a law. ;) - DJ

Posted by: DingoJack | November 22, 2009 12:16 AM

Ed Brayton "...and there are people like Alvin Plantinga, William Lane Craig and Ken Miller, who are all quite brilliant and accomplished."
I don't know much about the first (except, unfortunately, for having run into presuppositionalists) but, to paraphrase the great Sesame Street, two of these things don't look like the other.

Posted by: Modusoperandi | November 22, 2009 2:56 AM

dogshitib wrote:

Problem is, biology, genetics, paleontology, anthropology, astronomy, archaeology, history, linguistics, geology, and a dozen other fields of learning show quite conclusively that your mythical magical world of the sky fairy is ridiculously false unless you want to adopt a vague deistic belief system.

I have some trouble parsing your stupid-speak, but I assume you are referring to theism, in which case, this is mere assertion.

The Bible, Koran, Torah, Vedas, Book of the Dead, Illiad, Oddessy, Eddas, are all wrong if you try to use them as a legitimate historical or scientific book to explain the world around us. They don't work, period, end of story.

Your personal conviction is noted and discarded.

The universe is billions of years old, the earth is billions of years old, man as a species is hundreds of thousands of years old, mankind as a cultural template is at least fifty thousand years old. Civilization is at least eight to ten thousand years old.

Correct.

There was no flood,

There have been plenty of floods.

and if there was an historical Jesus, he likely bears little resemblance to the hodge podge of middle eastern messiahs that is depicted in the Bible.

You don't know the first thing about Biblical scholarship or the milieu of Jesus; don't pretend you do.

Billions of people have a hard time dealing with the fact that, at some time in the not so distant future, they will cease to "be." Provide some evidence, concrete, conclusive evidence that your invisible sugar daddy who will make sure that you live on forever if you only follow the correct collection of fairy tales and say the right magic words on the very special magical day of the week is different from all of the other sky sugar daddies who you insist don't really exist and their magical words don't work, their magical book is wrong, their magical day of the week is wrong, etc. Explain, with evidence, how your version of things is right and everyone else is wrong. Explain how your version of things magically contradicts the mountains of evidence.

You've already demonstrated that you are a pretentious moron; now you are just being gratuitous.

Posted by: Milesius | November 22, 2009 4:44 AM

I'd propose that we come off sounding like a bunch of know it all assholes because we are, in fact, a bunch of know it all assholes. :P

I agree with the parts in bold.

Posted by: Milesius | November 22, 2009 4:57 AM

Our society will have grown up when it views faith as a juvenile delusional character defect.

Michael Heath is a pretentious moron whose posts, like a fart, befoul the air for a few moments, then quickly dissipate for lack of substance.

He deserves Michigan.

Posted by: Milesius | November 22, 2009 5:13 AM

There have been plenty of floods.

This is an accurate statement.

It's also accurate to state that the Noachian flood as described in Genesis was not one of those. It either never happened, or the deity responsible for the event erased all evidence of it.

Posted by: Josh | November 22, 2009 5:19 AM

How many people here who claim to "love" science have actually contributed to it via publications or have firsthand knowledge of it?

*raises hand*

Yes to both.

Posted by: Josh | November 22, 2009 5:26 AM

I stated previously:

Our society will have grown up when it views faith as a juvenile delusional character defect.

Michael Heath is a pretentious moron whose posts, like a fart, befoul the air for a few moments, then quickly dissipate for lack of substance.

Uh, wow, talk about walking into a punch. Thanks for vividly illuminating my point.

Now I need to look through my archives of LPs to see the last time I purchased a comedy album that contained a fart joke on it. I think it was around the time I was 13, which at the time would made me a . . . yeah, that's right, juvenile.

Another beautiful example of projectionism. They just can't help it; even when they're warned in advance.

Posted by: Michael Heath | November 22, 2009 7:34 AM

Milwhineatusa;

You're published? Cool. Put the stuff on a blog, give us the co-ordinates and let the ones who don't already know that you're a lying fuckbag waste some of their time reading it. If you say that folks have to "buy in" to read it? refer back to "don't already know that you're a lying fuckbag.", mmmkay?

Posted by: democommie | November 22, 2009 9:48 AM

So now I am a hypocrite for standing up for myself and others who believe in GOD from the accusation that we are all delussional by stating that for me "To believe that everything just MAGICALLY appeared and turned out the way it did without some sort of divine influence sounds delusional to me."? Where in that statement did I call anyone else delussional? Where? I didn't! Don't put words in my mouth Mr. Brayton you fucking fat-headed Pompous jerk.

This is no science blog. This is a sounding board for a bunch of bullies who need to put others down in order to make them feel better about themselves. There is no relevant scientific discussion going on here. It's either you believe what everyone else believes or you are summarily dismissed as an idiot or you are delussional.

And as far as me admitting that my understanding of the scientific method being completely wrong, there's no chance of that happening because it's not. scientists make observations and then postulate a theory to explain their observations and then they conduct tests either through experimentation or mathematically to try and prove their theory as correct or not. While the methodology of the testing process may differ slightly from my understanding it is not completely wrong, so fuck all you smart ass fucking prickjobs.

Posted by: Berbel | November 22, 2009 1:18 PM

Blubberer:

"This is no science blog. This is a sounding board for a bunch of bullies who need to put others down in order to make them feel better about themselves"

Wrong, again. Are you really so fucking stupid you can't understand that you have NO facts to back up anything you say about the existence of your invisibly skybuddy, GOD? This is a "Science Blog", bonehead. Observable facts will be discussed by people here. Talk about supreme beings, creators or otherwise has not the faintest whiff of science; it often reeks of desperation, thought. STFU, go away.

Posted by: demccommie | November 22, 2009 3:21 PM

Again, one wonders why Berbel has not taken democommie's advice if we hurt his feelings so much.

Posted by: Sadie Morrison | November 22, 2009 4:15 PM

He's hardly "gollum-like". If anything he looks like a metal shop instructor.

Posted by: Modusoperandi | November 22, 2009 5:12 PM

I'm still waiting for a citation from Mr. Milesius as to something he has had published. I suspect that the shrimps will learn to whistle before he responds.

Posted by: SLC | November 22, 2009 5:52 PM

"I don't think I, or anyone else that has a functional brain (especially on this blog) would ty to furnish, "the unquestionable proof that man has evolved from chimps as has been claimed here that completely disproves inteligent creation."

"Why? well, because we KNOW better. Man and chimps evolved from a common ancestor at some point in the past."

PROVE IT YOU PIECE OF SHIT OR STFU!!!!!!!!

Posted by: Berbel | November 22, 2009 9:50 PM

dogshitib wrote:

Wow, did I kick your puppy or something?

I have some trouble parsing your stupid-speak, but I assume you are referring to theism, in which case, this is mere assertion.

Well, if you had any actual idea what you were talking about, this "stupid-speak" would establish a logical and coherent argument. As DingoJack pointed out (tip of hat), Deism is a rational view of a "supreme being" that arose during the enlightenment. Instead of a directly interacting God, it posited a less hands on, more of a "watchmaker" God who did not directly interfere in the daily workings of the universe. If you adopt such a view, then the Bible doesn't have to be literally true, then the evidence for common descent, evolution, an old earth and an old universe aren't a problem.

If, however, one does adhere to the deistic belief system, then the Bible (and all other religious texts) is simply a collection of parables, no different than any other collection of fairy tales.

Your personal conviction is noted and discarded.

Evidence? Or are you too busy talking out of your ass?

The universe is billions of years old, the earth is billions of years old, man as a species is hundreds of thousands of years old, mankind as a cultural template is at least fifty thousand years old. Civilization is at least eight to ten thousand years old.

Correct.

I'm glad you approve, I was so worried I wouldn't pass your muster...[rolls eyes]

There was no flood,

There have been plenty of floods.

Really? You're going to pop in and act like a middle school brat? Given the context it is obvious the reference is to the Biblical "Flood" for which there is no evidence. You can argue, quite legitimately, that "the flood" is a merging of Gilgamesh and Egyptian traditions, but again, that would refute the idea that the Bible is a literal and accurate story of the actual events of a 6,000 year old earth.

and if there was an historical Jesus, he likely bears little resemblance to the hodge podge of middle eastern messiahs that is depicted in the Bible.

You don't know the first thing about Biblical scholarship or the milieu of Jesus; don't pretend you do.

Again with the pulling shit out of your ass. By simply making a statement you don't actually prove or disprove anything, except perhaps that you're a jackass. Again, what evidence do you have to support your contention that I "don't know the first thing about Biblical scholarship?"

Billions of people have a hard time dealing with the fact that, at some time in the not so distant future, they will cease to "be." Provide some evidence, concrete, conclusive evidence that your invisible sugar daddy who will make sure that you live on forever if you only follow the correct collection of fairy tales and say the right magic words on the very special magical day of the week is different from all of the other sky sugar daddies who you insist don't really exist and their magical words don't work, their magical book is wrong, their magical day of the week is wrong, etc. Explain, with evidence, how your version of things is right and everyone else is wrong. Explain how your version of things magically contradicts the mountains of evidence.

You've already demonstrated that you are a pretentious moron; now you are just being gratuitous.

Your projection of your own failings is truly quite impressive. Really, honestly, thank you for a bit by bit collection of "I DON'T LIKE YOU OR WHAT YOU HAVE TO SAY!!!" Now that you are (hopefully) done acting like a spoiled five year old girl, care to actually make a substance based comment? Something with evidence? Something that actually supports your position? Berbel simply whines, ignores comments or portions of comments he(or she) is unable to refute or unwilling to address. You sneer and hiss and spit, but say even less.

You're both going to have to work a lot harder if you want to be the official troll of this thread.

Posted by: dogmeatib | November 22, 2009 10:16 PM

"Why? well, because we KNOW better. Man and chimps evolved from a common ancestor at some point in the past."

PROVE IT YOU PIECE OF SHIT OR STFU!!!!!!!!

c'mon Berbel, we all know that yours is a dishonest "request." No matter what evidence is provided you will not accept it because you have too much invested in your belief that we were specially created by an invisible man in the sky. The evidence is massive and, to anyone who is willing to honestly examine the data, undeniable.

Posted by: dogmeatib | November 22, 2009 10:25 PM

What Demo said, with the sentence: "Or at least take him fishing*" tacked on the end.
Mr Burble is partially right though, no science is being discussed here, however this is mainly because there is nothing here to discuss.
A discussion requires two competing viewpoints, backed up with reasoned arguments and/or evidence. It needs those that make extraordinary claims (such as the belief in god(s)) to produce extraordinary evidence to support those claims.
What we have here are bald assertions backed up with nothing more than bluster, that's not giving us anything with which to work. When coupled with a total inability to admit simple errors of fact, all one is left with is a transcript of shouting match.
Too bad, I came here for an argument^. - DJ
-----------------------------------
* I'd recommend rock fishing, (without a life-jacket)
^ Perhaps Mr Berbel is man in room 12.

Posted by: DingoJack | November 22, 2009 10:40 PM

Well, I see the right-wingers are down to repeating their same old disproven assertions with added pure screaming, chest-pounding, fake-macho, tantrum-throwing rage. When you're trying to con huge numbers of people, the most important rule is to keep talking. And when that's not enough, talk louder, until you're just plain screaming; and when it's perfectly obvious you're acting just plain babyish, try your best to belittle everyone else's manhood.

Milesius and Berbel really need to go to bed. Seriously, do either of them really think "PROVE IT YOU PIECE OF SHIT OR STFU!!!!!!!!" is a plausible argument in any forum outside a redneck bar around 2:00am?

Posted by: Raging Bee | November 22, 2009 11:00 PM

Berbel: Major logical error here: Science is simply not interested in whether God exists or not. Whatever the case, He has created a universe where life evolves over time; for this the evidence is overwhelming, from cosmology to geology to biology. Science has adopted the principle of naturalism not because God(s) exist or not, but because it is the only practical approach: If God(s) intervene in the universe, then no result is reliable, as one God or another may have intervened.

As for whether or not evolution happens, it has been witnessed in every phyla (including chordates) in the years since the Origin of Species was published. Your denials are simply incorrect.

If there is a Creator God (and I believe there is) then He has not intervened much over the millenia. I'm cool with that.

Posted by: kehrsam | November 22, 2009 11:05 PM

it still won't disprove the distinct probability of an inteligent creation of the universe. If everyone here wants to ignore the utterly overwhelming stastical probablity that all of creation didn't just happen by chance then go right ahead,

Problem still remains with your argument Berbel and no matter how much you wave your arms about and shout, it doesn't go away.

You argue that the universe could not have "just happened" and instead claim that there is overwhelming stastical[sic] evidence for creation, but who or what created the creator? You simply transfer the problem of "where did it all come from?" to a "God created it" but never bother to look further and question, "where did God come from?"

You refuse the idea that the universe just is, but argue that God just is. That is a massive logical inconsistency.

What's even more important for you jack asses that simply can't accept that you aren't the smartest beings in the whole fucking universe,

Quite to the contrary, most of us are willing to admit that we, as both individuals or as a species, aren't the smartest beings in the whole "fucking" universe. Given the massive number of stars out there, the massive number of planets around those stars, and the likelihood that there is life on those planets, the odds that we are the smartest things in town is highly unlikely. If that is the case, to be honest, I weep for the universe, because, as a species, we're rather stupid.

Science can no more disprove the existance of GOD than it can prove that we all evolved from some sort of fucking chimpanzee. Show me the unquestionable FUCKING proof! Where the fuck is the evidence that finally says "here it is"? IT DOESN'T FUCKING EXIST TO ME!!

Fixed that for you. The problem is, there will be no evidence that will be acceptable to you. Paleonanthropology is irrelevant to you. You wont accept the two dozen species that document the evolution of humans over the last 7 million years. You wont accept the genetic evidence for our close ties to chimpanzees. Short of acquiring Well's Time Machine and taking you back, step by step, through the process, I don't see any evidence that you will be rational or honest in this challenge. Frankly, were we able to travel in time, I doubt you would even accept that evidence, instead insisting that it was simply a video, not real, etc.

You simply have too much at stake, you strike me personally as one of those who cling so firmly to your faith that, were you actually to consider the evidence, your entire belief structure would likely collapse around you. You have to deny it all because, without your faith, nothing makes sense to you.

Posted by: dogmeatib | November 22, 2009 11:20 PM

What really annoys me the most here is that I TRUELY enjoy science. Science and religion both endevour to understand what is "truth". Both are meant, in my belief, to inspire people to understand why we are all here. I'd like to insert a link to a video that I found on youtube that really touched me with not just its message but also it's shear creativity. This to me is how we should all inspire to be.

www.youtube.com/user/melodysheep

Posted by: Berbel | November 22, 2009 11:30 PM

Berbel - You demanded "proof" of common descent for humans and chimps (which is unrelated to the question of god's existence, by the way). I gave you a link to a site which does of very good job of laying out the huge amount of evidence for common descent. You ignored that and instead came back with another comment demanding "proof". Why should we take you seriously?

Posted by: Taz | November 22, 2009 11:50 PM

Well, Burble, since you first made the extraordinary claim of the existence of god, you get to answer the question first:
What evidence do you have that absolutely proves the existence of god or gods? No 'reasonable doubt', no 'balance of probabilities', but absolute, 100% guaranteed, not even a smidgen of doubt, proof. Convince me.- DJ
--------------------------
BTW how would one design an experiment to disprove the existence of god or gods (or any kind of supernatural creature). anyway?

Posted by: DIngoJack | November 23, 2009 12:35 AM

"@Taz, Because your link while convincing still doesn't preclude the chance that human life could have evolved separately on it's own."
Nothing precludes the possibility of something else. It just makes it less likely.

"Why is it so important that I believe that we evolved from chimpanzees or that we share the same common ancestry?"
Because that's what the evidence shows. Denying Common Descent is denying the history of the life on Earth.

"Maybe we do or maybe we don't, no one knows for sure without any doubt."
Ah, there's always doubt. Confidence in the best explanation isn't absolute confidence.

"For anyone to dismiss any possiblity of how our existance has come to be is being extremely narrow minded and to simply attack some one for having a different belief is being a bigot."
And how do you feel about those who deny the evidence, and the theories around them, pointing to the most probable way that we got here? In short, how do you think we feel when you come here and ignore the facts? In shorter, on a tangent, how come you aren't a Last Tuesdayist?

Posted by: Modusoperandi | November 23, 2009 12:39 AM

"All I have asked here is to be shown the irrefutable evidence that all mankind is descended from some common ancestry of chimpanzees or any other primate for that matter."

The irrefutable evidence is the various homologies located both at the anatomical level and molecular level. You can use both to infer what biologists call "phylogenies", trees that show the evolutionary relationships between different species.

Happy?

Posted by: Tyler DiPietro | November 23, 2009 1:19 AM

Berbel- "the right to those beliefs"

Who says you don't have a right to believe stupid things? You have every right to believe stupid things. And we have every right to point and laugh. I believe it essential to point and laugh at idiots who believe stupid things. I have a right to this belief, and you should respect it.

Berbel is funny, but it misunderstands the reason why this is true. It thinks we're laughing at it because it believes in GAWD. But that's common. Believers are a dime a dozen. No. Berbel is funny because, somewhere in its past, some pastor told it that evolution and GAWD couldn't both be true.

And Berbel believed that bullshit. And now the amusement of watching it try to cram it's all-powerful, almighty beast of a diety into the shrinking cracks in human knowledge. And when it hears too many voices challenging it's stupidity, out come the CAPS and the EXCLAMATION POINTS!!!!!!!!!!11eleven!!

Berbel is a creationist. That is it's right. And creationists deserve to be laughed at.

That is our responsibility.

Posted by: Rick R | November 23, 2009 1:24 AM

@dingoJack, How is my extraordinary claim of the existance of GOD an more extraordinary than the claims made here that we have evolved from some common ancestry with chimpanzees?

Because we have evidence of common ancestry, but absolutely no evidence of a god.

Berbel, you say that you love science and find it inspiring, and yet you keep demanding unreasonable things from it.

You keep writing things like this:

Can you provide the absolute proof without a smidgen of doubt that...

Please go read comments 98 and 133 again. There is nothing in science that is completely without doubt, from Atomic Theory to Heliocentric. Hell, I would argue that there are no facts that are completely without doubt (i.e., I would argue that all facts have error bars around the observation, even if those error bars are vanishingly small). Nothing in science is unquestionable, and yet you keep demanding to be presented with evidence that is.

If you want to have a discussion about evolution and the evidence for common ancestry, then let's jump in. It'll be fun. But in order to do that honestly, we first must get past this middle school understanding of science. I'm sorry if you see that statement as condescending, but that's about where this discussion currently is*.

We don't prove scientific theories to be True^TM. There is no such thing as unquestionable in science. You need to let it go.

___________
*Because I hold firm that if a student graduates from high school expecting to see theories proven True^TM, then their teachers have failed them spectacularly.

Posted by: Josh | November 23, 2009 6:11 AM

From here:

65
We are all equal and no one is better than any one else, therefor everyone should make the same income. The government is supposed to take care of us, and provide for all of our needs. There is no GOD. We all "evolved" from single cell organisms. And science is the only thing that is absolute. Is there anything else that I missed that we all should believe?

Posted by: Berbel | November 19, 2009 9:22 PM

to here:

@dingoJack, How is my extraordinary claim of the existance of GOD an more extraordinary than the claims made here that we have evolved from some common ancestry with chimpanzees? I have stated before that I can not provide absolute proof of the existance of GOD, no one can. Can you provide the absolute proof without a smidgen of doubt that we evolved from some common ancestry with chimpanzees? Of course you can't, or at least not at this time. And even if and when that time comes will that eliminate the possiblity of GOD or the possibilty of inteligent creation?

@Mr. Heath, please do not condescend to me. I am not here to claim that I am an expert when it comes to evolution. All I have asked here is to be shown the irrefutable evidence that all mankind is descended from some common ancestry of chimpanzees or any other primate for that matter. I am fully willing and able to accept such facts when and if they are presented. And in light of such a revelation I will still ask to be shown how it would denounce the existance of GOD.

I believe the sooner we all start respecting each and every persons individual beliefs, and the right to those beliefs the better off we all will be.

Posted by: Berbel | November 23, 2009 12:59 AM

a number of people have pointed out this idiot's errors in logic, scientific ignorance and childish intransigence--to, afaia, no avail.

Meanwhile the true path of this thread, to mock and ridicule Sarah Palin, has gone untrod.

Posted by: democommie | November 23, 2009 7:38 AM

Re Tyler DiPietro @ #147

That explains why fuckface goatfucker Milesius hasn't provided a citation to a peer reviewed article he has had published. To do so would reveal his identity, assuming such an article even exists.

Posted by: SLC | November 23, 2009 9:01 AM

That explains why fuckface goatfucker Milesius hasn't provided a citation to a peer reviewed article he has had published. To do so would reveal his identity, assuming such an article even exists.

I just figured that they crayon smudged and he couldn't read the full abstract to get the citation.

----------
Berbel,

How is my extraordinary claim of the existance of GOD an more extraordinary than the claims made here that we have evolved from some common ancestry with chimpanzees? I

The problem is that there actually is evidence to support common descent. We've provided links to it, stated elements of that evidence, etc. On the other hand you keep insisting that these two "extraordinary" claims are identical in their potential to be proven, IE impossible. This isn't the case, you're simply playing games, ignoring the evidence presented (as requested) and refusing to provide even an iota of evidence to support your claim. We're not even asking for irrefutable proof, we asking for some proof, really any measurable, quantifiable proof based on actual evidence. At this point we have you pointing to a collection of old books. Unless you're willing to accept that other old books provide evidence for the existence of fairies, trolls, elves, etc.

Because your link while convincing still doesn't preclude the chance that human life could have evolved separately on it's own.

What evidence do you have to support this claim? This is your basic, fundamental misunderstanding of science, simply because you can conceive of an alternate explanation it doesn't make it valid or equally plausible unless you provide some actual evidence to support your claim. Unless you have some evidence that man has evolved from some other species (suggestions are open), you're just throwing crap at the wall hoping it will stick.

Posted by: dogmeatib | November 23, 2009 9:16 AM

Ed Brayton: ...and there are people like Alvin Plantinga, William Lane Craig and Ken Miller, who are all quite brilliant and accomplished.

Modusoperandi: I don't know much about the first (except, unfortunately, for having run into presuppositionalists) but, to paraphrase the great Sesame Street, two of these things don't look like the other.

This. Exactly. Two are philosophers, one is a scientist who actually does something useful. And may I add that Craig is not brilliant in my book as long as he continues to tell retarded lies about mathematics in his standard spiel.

Posted by: Ivan | November 23, 2009 10:59 AM

To belittle some one for believing in a "higher" power that may have created the universe and had a hand in our "evolution" is a bigot.

You're right. It's not good to make fun of the mentally handicapped.

Posted by: Gruesome Rob | November 23, 2009 11:56 AM

You want me to provide proof? I say read the Bible, The Torah, or the Koran.

And "Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone" is proof of Voldemort, OMG! We're all gonna die!

Posted by: Gruesome Rob | November 23, 2009 12:07 PM

Ok, a brilliant debater, a master debater, but not brilliant full stop.

By the way, your usage of brackets (which are very useful (especially nested ones)) mark you as a (wo)man after my own heart. They're like a drug-- I find it incredibly easy to overdose on them. ^_^

Posted by: Ivan | November 23, 2009 12:44 PM

Ivan:

As Mae West (is purported to have) said:

"Too much of a good thing is not enough!" (besides I can quit using (I mean in a bad way) them anytime I want to) and I agree.

Posted by: democommie | November 23, 2009 12:53 PM

Well, Hell has a quota.

Well, if your religion has nothing to offer but threats, then it's nothing but useless crap.

Posted by: Raging Bee | November 23, 2009 4:14 PM

"In reality it is akin to flinging poo at a wall and waiting for something to stick. Much like what Milesius does, but in not quite so juvenile a fashion."

But, at least Mildlyseized can console him with the fact that he can eat all of the leftovers.

Posted by: democommie | November 23, 2009 5:29 PM

Where, oh where, is that link to some of your scholarship?

Didn't you get it Demo? He drew it on the screen of his computer in crayon, the link didn't work? ;o)

Posted by: dogmeatib | November 23, 2009 5:53 PM

"Well, Hell has a quota."

Dude, Hell's gonna be a blast. All the cool people are going there. Heaven, on the other hand, is filled with people like you.

Everybody, take your pick.

Posted by: Tyler DiPietro | November 23, 2009 6:46 PM